Back
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SINNE TAMBY POOTHEPILLAI
NLR2V214
In the Matter of the Estate of the late Sinne Tamby
Poothepillai.
D. C., Jaffna (Testamentary), 702.
Probate by foreign Court-How far it is binding on Courts in Ceylon-Civil Procedure Code, s. 533-Objections to application for probate-Framing of issues.
Although a District Court is not bound, as a matter of course, to follow the decision of a foreign Court as to grant of probate of the will of a deceased person, yet it will and ought to do so, unless good reason is shown to the contrary. Where probate has been granted by the foreign Court, it is bound to presume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the foreign Court satisfied itself that the will was the will of the testator, and had been duly executed.
In the case of an application for probate, before the Court frames issues as provided
for in section 533 of the Civil Procedure Code, it must be satisfied that a primâ facie case against granting the
application has been made out. It is not sufficient for the Court to be satisfied that somebody objects, or for somebody
to get up and say that the will is a forgery: something more is necessary from which the Court can infer that a
substantial case against the application has been made out.
THE facts of the case appear in the judgment of Bonser, C. J.
Ramanathan, S. G., with Sampayo and Jayewardene, for appellant.
Wendt, for respondent.
17th September, 1898. Bonser, C. J. -
This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Jaffna, who has rejected an application, which was made by a widow, for letters of administration to the estate of her late husband, and granted the counter application of the son and brother of the deceased that probate should be granted to them, the first and second respondents, as executors of his last will. It appears that the deceased had for many years past lived in Madras, where he carried on the business of a broker. The petitioner was his second wife, and lived separate from him at Jaffna, where the deceased had formerly lived himself, and had a considerable amount of property. He died on the 24th September, 1895, at Madras. The widow at once took steps to obtain administration of her husband's estate as upon an intestacy. On the 28th of September last she presented a petition to the District Court of Jaffna, as the Court having jurisdiction, praying that letters may be granted to her: On the 7th of January, 1896, an order nisi was made and citation issued to the son and the other next of kin. Upon this citation the son and the two brothers of the deceased appeared and filed their ground of objection to the order nisi being
made absolute, the grounds being that the deceased had left a will, and that probate of that will had been duly granted to them ' by the High Court of Madras. With their ground of objections they: combined an application for grant of probate to themselves as executors of the will. This was on the 6th of March, 1896. The counsel for the petitioner was present in Court. Thereupon the District Judge, instead of making an order nisi for grant of probate and directing it to be served on the petitioner, which he would have done had she not been represented in Court, dispensed with that formality and set the case down for hearing on the 10th April. But before that day arrived application was made by both parties for a postponement, on the ground that they were negotiating for a settlement. Ultimately the parties being unable to agree to a settlement, the case came on for hearing on the 3rd August. On that day the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issues in the case were: -
(1) Whether the domicile of the deceased S. Poothepillai was Jaffna or Madras.
(2) That if Madras be proved to be the domicile of the deceased, whether the will has been duly proved there.
After some argument the District Judge made his order. He began by stating t
